Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions.
Even if it can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of the
amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say that a GR is unwelcome, and
b) to reduce as much as possible the “attack surface” on the voted text in case
some people want to use it to continue arguing after the vote.
The discussion in this GR falls short of concrete examples of a) what is wrong
in Jessie, b) how it should be corrected and c), why would a GR be needed. The
burden of the proof is on the side that asks for a GR, not the reverse. If
there is not concrete problem to solve, there should be no vote.
I consider this GR strongly anti-democratic and anti-doocratic. The different
amendements require digging in long, noisy threads to assess what is the common
understanding of them (and thanks Lucas for your summary, but it did not help
me to have a clear picture of what would be the most likely concrete
consequence (that is, not “what the rules are”, but “how the system runs“) of
voting each amendement). This makes the GR anti-democratic since the safest
choice becomes to vote by the names of who proposed and seconded an amendement
rather than by the contents of the amendement itself. And it is anti-doocratic
since it lays general principles for the Jessie + 1 release without even giving
a chance for the people who will do the work to prepare this release in a
brilliant way that does not require the project to constrain their choices.
[I can not beleive I spent an hour writing this short text; I hope it is my last
email related to this GR.]
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan